A Defense of Moderates and Liberalism

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

In the thread pertaining to the unconstitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, Vern Gagne said many things, put here in quotes, that he believes to be true of liberals and atheists. Since it was so wide-reaching in its subject material, I felt it should go into a new thread.

 

There are an abundance of things that Mr. Vern Gagne has said that I take exception to as one of these "Atheist Socialists."

 

"I blame Atheist Socialist for this entire mess. Not all socialist, Tom Daschle was upset about this, and all atheist Dr.Tom had no problems with it."

 

Well, Tom Daschle is a Democrat, not a Socialist. The Socialist Party in this country's influence on politics is almost negligable, and has been since the 1920s. Daschle is also the Senate Majority Leader, the highest-ranking Democrat in Washington, and thus the de facto leader of the entire party. It would be foolish on his part to go out and alienate millions of Democratic voters by supporting something he knows very well they'll be upset about. The Democrats may be the more liberal party, but on a global scale, they're really only moderates. And Dr. Tom is cool, leave him out of this.

 

"How do we monger war? They attacked us and want to kill us. War is sometimes the only option. It might be hard for the socialist to understand that you can't solve everything with a hug."

 

How this got in here I don't know. We were discussing the seperation of Church and State, and you decided to go off on something else. Okay then, I'll field this one too. I doubt you can find a single sensible person in this country who doesn't want to eradicate terrorism. Anyone who isn't at least mildly upset still over 9/11 is not a very worthwhile human being. The methods taken in the war can be protested however. Now, just going after Al-Quida and its financial backers is fine, but for us to declare war on an entire abstract idea such as terrorism will never be successful. It's the same reason Communist parties still exist, despite us "winning" the Cold War. Same reason that Neo-Nazis still exist. You can eradicate people all day, but an idea will never die. I personally advocate using the most swift and brutal retaliation on these people, but I don't see us winning this war on terrorism for at least ten years, if we do at all. I can see where these people are coming from in their hatred of us sure, but my country, right or wrong.

 

"Let's see we cut defense spending and looked what happened. But it would be better to have univeral health care. That's worked wonders in Canada."

 

Defense spending and health care have nothing to do with each other. 9/11 had nothing to do with defense spending. In 1982, defense spending was at a fifteen-year high, and some of our barracks in Beirut were still bombed. Increased defense spending would not have prevented 9/11, and to say it would have is absurd, especially considering that the FAA doesn't fall under the department of defense. As for universal health care, it is considerably more difficult to pull off here than in Canada. 26 million versus 286 million. Socialist programs work more effectively in countries with smaller populations. Germany has universal health care with a population of 80 million, and I think that's the most populated country that has executed it well. To have such a health care program would also increase the already heavy tax burden on the nation that is already in place due to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When I look at my pay stub, I see that a lot of my money is going toward those three programs, and that's only for people who can't afford it. Imagine the price paid for everyone. Such a move would also put all health insurance companies out of business, since there'd be no need for them anymore.

 

"Just like the idiot in California who tried to to force is atheism on people."

 

I don't know who you're talking about, but if he's going through the same thing that a man I saw on CBS latenight news is going through, I support him. The man they showed last night was a plantiff in some case that involved the seperation of Church and State(maybe this same case we're speaking of), and they played some of the messages that people left on his machine. "Communist bastard," "get the hell out of my country," "Waste of air," "Pinko atheist." Of course these people didn't know any better, but for people who choose not to be religious to go through such persecution is terrible. If I were Christian, I'd definitely be a Deist, one who says that God came here, did his work, and moved on to somewhere else in the Universe, so there really isn't much of a point to worshipping him, since he's been gone for a few billion years now. Now, I saw the President say that God was integral to our lives as American citizens. Right. Since when did we elect a pastor? What about the millions of people who aren't Christian in your country, Dubya?

 

"Let me guess you're outraged that millions of Iraqi's are dieing, and it's the fault of the United States. Get a clue."

 

I'm not outraged, because there aren't millions dying. They brought the sanctions on themselves with aggression against Kuwait and their own Kurds, so it's their fault. We have only been responsible for perhaps 1-2,000 deaths ourselves. Hussein himself and his rule are responsible for many more thousands. I am a very strong advocate of overthrowing the bastard. We really should have gone all the way through with the job back in '91, but we didn't, so we now pay the price by watching him kill his own people.

 

"We don't blame minorites we blame pc liberals who think everything can be solved with hand outs. God forbid you advocate hard work , because if you do your called a racist."

 

I advocate hard work, but there are literally some who are in no position to help themselves. I suppose you'd like to see old people still working as hard as a person half their age. I'm for the ideas of Welfare and Medicaid and all, but only for those who truly deserve it. There is so much abuse in the system that it naturally gets a bad reputation. I'm wondering what the correlation between racism and hard work is. That's a head scratcher.

 

"We're supposed to be neutral? Why the hell are we supposed to be neutral. Is it because Isreal is fighting against people that target innocent civilians. The Palestinians get money fro the U.S. and when the crackdown on terrorist they'll get more."

 

I'd like to see records of money that we've given the PLO. If we were, it was halted long ago. I'm a full supporter of neutrality in this, because if these people refuse to reason out the conflict in order to end it, they deserve to keep blowing each other away. Anyone who refuses to improve their lot in life isn't really worth the time or money that we've been putting into this. These two groups will always be at odds no matter what we do, and taking the side of Israel only supports their own aggression against Palestinians and turns the Arab world against us more. It is the good of the many over the good of the few. If staying neutral prevents more attacks upon us by supporters of the PLO, then I'm all for it. Oh, and the Palestinians keep attacking civilians because compared to Israel, their military power is squat. Israel has the latest and best of military technology from every major Western power while the Palestinians are still clunking around in Soviet tanks from the 70s. A T-38 versus a M-1 Abrams is nowhere near a fair fight. Did I mention this is all based on religion?

 

"That's the funniest statement ever. Liberals would never blame EVERYTHING on conservatives."

 

I place blame on those who are responsible. If a liberal came up with a plan or action I didn't like, I'd make it known I didn't like it. Same with a conservative. I'm for measures and actions that will improve things, no matter who it comes from.

 

"Don't lie and tell me you're a moderate."

 

I think I am a moderate with slight liberal leanings. You could call me a conservative Democrat.

 

Thank you for reading, if anyone read this.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'm wondering what the correlation between racism and hard work is. That's a head scratcher.

 

I wonder what the connection is myself especialy since I've been called a racist for saying that those who can work should work. Many people, almost exclusively leftists accociate anything a white male says as racist and will stretch and distort what was actually said into something that they can hate. I've seen it and been a victim of it on many occasions. The fact that some one can twist a statement as inocuos as "Is someone can work they should work" into racism adn others actually buy into it is sad. unfortunately it's rampant in our country.

 

"Let's see we cut defense spending and looked what happened. But it would be better to have univeral health care. That's worked wonders in Canada."

 

Defense spending and health care have nothing to do with each other

 

Defense cuts and Socialized medicine seem to be things that leftists want. They would rather have teh money that goes to protecting all of us go to protecting a relatively small percentage of us. So there is a a correlation there and you're right it would never work in America and the already huge tax burden would be increased even more so. Plus teh fact of teh matter is that anyone who needs basic treatments will get it, no matter how much money they have so it's not even needed. It's just another way to punish those who are successful in this country and reward those who aren't.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

This wasn't really directed at you Kotzenjunge. It was a response from a post by outcast 11.

 

I call liberals socialist because frankly alot of them are. Look at Paul Welfare, he's a socialist.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I know it wasn't directed at me, I just felt a need to point out that us lefties aren't all the same.

 

Besides, it gave me a chance to express my thoughts on a lot of stuff going on right now.

[Guest Some Guy]

Kotzenjunge, you really don't seem to be in sync with what many prominent Leftists think. Which is a good thing.

Now if only you'd get that piece of shit out of your sig.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Grr. I'll just try and ignore that comment on my signature. It rules. I don't say anything about the oversized Vanilla Midgets link, do I?

[Guest Some Guy]

I don't know how to make a link say a word instead of the address.

 

Lennin is evil BTW, not Stalin by any means but he was not a nice man to say the least. I liked the Australian Invasion pic better.

 

Well now that this thread is totally derailed, I'll move on.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Since this came up in General Chat and some folks here may not go there, I thought I'd bring this thread back up because a discussion in the "Favorite Folder" thread pretty much turned into a left versus right debate.

 

I'd like to actually try posting here again, as talking things over and getting a lot of the pent-up frustration out really helped. I apologize to anyone I may have offended in that debate, but I get rather passionate about defending my points, and finally saw what it was like to be in the shoes of some of the people I would have called "evil conservatives" as lately as yesterday.

 

Whatever, I think I can weather the heat now, so into the kitchen I venture again. Thanks to Marney for the appropriate analogy, used in that thread I mentioned above.

 

I'll also not use the tagline here, rather say my name instead.

 

Kotzenjunge

 

EDIT: That felt weird. I'm used to that tagline.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Evil Conservatives...Whatever do you mean

[Guest MrRant]

How about you use:

 

 

Kotzenjunge

Leftward Ho!

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I'm not a Ho, I'm a whore. There's a difference. I'm out for myself, screw the pimps!

 

Kotzenjunge

Leftward Whore

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Tom Daschle is a Democrat, not a Socialist.

Democrats are half a step removed from socialism. They don't call themselves Socialists, but that's what they are.

 

for us to declare war on an entire abstract idea such as terrorism will never be successful.

Absolutely agreed. The real enemy is radical Islam, and we should name it and recognise it for what it is.

 

Germany has universal health care with a population of 80 million, and I think that's the most populated country that has executed it well.

A bit of an exaggeration. Germany has the highest tax burden and the most oppressive welfare state in Europe. Their economy is struggling as a direct result. The lesson? Guaranteed universal coverage without premiums never works. It shifts the burden from those who need resources to those who do not. It is coerced charity and nothing more.

 

there are literally some who are in no position to help themselves. I suppose you'd like to see old people still working as hard as a person half their age.

I'd like to see old people investing in stocks, saving for their retirement, and living off the interest. Millions do it. Millions more can. Again: coerced charity demeans those who enforce it and those who receive it, and it is terribly unfair to those who must give it.

 

I'd like to see records of money that we've given the PLO. If we were, it was halted long ago.

No, it wasn't. We still give Yasser Arafat about $500 million per year through the United Nations. We should have stopped a long time ago.

 

If staying neutral prevents more attacks upon us by supporters of the PLO, then I'm all for it.

This is called appeasement and cowardice, and it is evil.

 

the Palestinians keep attacking civilians because compared to Israel, their military power is squat.

And because they're evil. Never forget that they're evil. Again, the blacks were in a much worse situation, as the Red Indians still are. How often do you hear of Red Indian suicide bombings? How many black leaders called for "martyrs" to butcher white infants during the civil rights movement?

 

I think I am a moderate with slight liberal leanings. You could call me a conservative Democrat.

Yes, after reading this post, I'd be willing to call you that. Which is much better than what you seemed to be before.

 

Welcome back.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Democrats are very, VERY diluted Socialists. Republicans are very, VERY diluted Reactionists. Of the two major parties, the Republicans are closer to their stereotype in my eyes, but not by much.

 

Ehh, if it's through the UN, I'm not really willing to say that we ourselves are doing it. The flaw goes to the UN itself. Also, I don't feel the PLO itself is evil, but the members sure as hell are screwed up, if that makes any sense. Whenever Arafat kicks the bucket or is removed from his position, they'll lose almost all credibility in the non-Arab world(except for the various anti-Semitic leanings in Europe), as Arafat is really all that keeps even me from disliking them. In my eyes, he at least looks like he's making an effort for peace. If only he could get his followers in line, which isn't happening as long as they're being financed for their suicidal efforts.

 

Sweden has the highest tax burden in Europe, but boy do they get some sweet benefits as citizens. Their population is somewhere around 18 million though I believe, so it's much easier. Germany is really too big to try this. I wrote this stuff two months ago, mind everyone just now seeing it. Since then, I've realized that Germany is really too big to attempt universal anything, and it's best kept to countries of means to do it with a moderate population, which I consider 50 million or lower.

 

It may be appeasement to not want attacks on us anymore in the name of us supporting Israel, but us supporting Israel is also inflaming the conflict much more in my eyes, especially since 9/11. Quite honestly, anything we do these days is wrong in the minds of the overwhelming majority of the Arab world, and if it effects something they see as pressing in nature(like supporting a Jewish state in their midst), they will attack it even more. It's really quite a radical idea, but the only way to end this is for Israel to just go all out with their attacks on the PLO, eradicate their power structure and expel all Moslems from their country. That would only end the PLO/Israel conflict though, and would lead to a much larger conflict as every bordering Arab nation would no doubt invade, but in all honesty, Israel could whip just about every country bordering them. At once. They may have strength in numbers, but once again, Israel has the best and latest in everything, and the Arab world is still rolling around in old Soviet wares. I wouldn't put it past us to even help them out if we had commenced the war on Iraq at the time.

 

The war on Iraq I see as an eventuality. Whether anyone likes it or not, most of the lawmakers and people in charge in this country want to go in there and get rid of Sadaam, and I agree. The loss of life doesn't worry me all that much, since we didn't have terrible casualties back in 1991 due to being able to blow away buildings and units without them seeing us and technology has improved even more since then. We could destroy them from the air, we might not even have to commit any ground troops in an ideal situation. I just wish we'd give more time to gather up some kind of global support before we do it. I really don't like the idea of us going off like some kind of cavalier nation and invading countries with no one but Britain supporting us, not because we're not militarily strong enough, but because such an action could strain relations for a long time, even if it's successful. Another unfortunate part of lacking a coalition as in 1991 is the admittedly selfish factor of a smaller percentage of American soldiers being committed to combat. As it stands, it would just be American and British soldiers, which raises the possibility for American casualties. Also, a lot of money is going to have to go into rehabilitating the country once we're done reducing it to rubble. Rebuilding, occupying to make sure it all goes smoothly, and probably having to fight off other Arab countries at the same time. This could really blow up in our face without some semblance of global support and end up as the United States versus the Arab world, which I don't think any of us can really imagine the implications of. We'd have to turn into a virtual police state here to prevent any kind of terrorist retaliation, considering how many attempts will be made if this worst case scenario goes down. Not every attempt can be stopped either, so there would actually be domestic casualties from a war being fought seven thousand miles away. Don't put it past the Pakistani brain trust to give nuclear knowledge to Iraq or other Arab countries in the event of a war either. Their president may be our chum, but the citizenry sure as hell isn't.

 

Back to stuff that is actually happening now. Social Security has been in place for so long, I don't see things going back to how you'd like to see it. A lot of retired people still do it the old fashioned way, living off of investments made while young and such, and a lot more younger people are making their futures secure in the face of Social Security possibly not existing by the time they retire. Don't worry about people becoming reliant on it, because not many people my age are really expecting it when they become eligible. Just out of curiosity, what is your stance on the very socialistic programs that were established with New Deal legislative action? Obviously keep it to stuff that's still around.

 

Radical Islam is not wrong when it isn't actively forced on the populace of a nation. If a country put a radical regime in power by popular movement, then we can't really complain, as that's really what we're fighting for, the right to choose. With their choices come the consequences. They should know that things will be harsh when such a regime is put into power. The Taliban forcefully took power as a minority, so it was naturally clamored for to be deposed. Iran dumping their Shah for a theocracy was fine until they began actually turning on other people and took our Embassy hostage, as an unfortunate side-effect of pure Islam is a constant state of war with all non-Moslems. Still, since no one was killed in the 444 days it went on, so you have to at least give them that. I don't think anyone was tortured or anything, but I could be wrong. I'd be appreciative if someone could answer me on this. I'm talking physical torture, to clarify.

 

Oh, you thought I was some bleeding-heart liberal? Are you nuts? I might have wanted Gore to win, but I would have rioted had Nader somehow won. Liberalism in its purest form is way too namby-pamby for me, as a lot of the values my grandparents raised me with are still with me. A lot of leftist stances I will agree with, but chances are that I disagree with just as many or maybe more. I agree with less right-based policies, mostly the ones that involve some kind of attempt to put moral values into law or their environmental ideals. I will agree with them on business policies for the most part, because this country was built on free enterprise and there's a lot of money out there to be made with right-wing policies. The only reason I was defending liberals so heartily in that debate was because I take the stance that Voltaire did, and for those who don't know, one of his quotes states, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

If someone had called all conservatives evil out of the blue, I would have defended them and probably ended up sounding a lot like Marney, minus the assload of governmental access.

 

Us moderates are neat like that, dontcha think?

 

Kotzenjunge

Moderate Whore

 

(If there was something I didn't cover, like I said, this stuff was written two months ago and I probably changed my stance since then)

[Zorin Industries 0]

Nicely said, I agree.

 

Just watch the Duran Duran hate there, alright?

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I'm only mad because they were ranked above KYLIE~! on that list. I have no beef with their music, I love it.

 

Kotzenjunge

Moderate Whore

[Zorin Industries 0]

Then thats cool, anybody disses Duran Duran answers to me

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Dude, I would never beef with anyone who had Magnum PI in their signature. That show owned when I was a kid beyond all words. Tom Selleck is a god among men. I'd kill him for his car though.

 

Kotzenjunge

Moderate Whore

[Zorin Industries 0]

Hes the only only man who can have a mustache like that and get away with it.

 

I was going to change the sig, but I think I might keep it now.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Ehh, if it's through the UN, I'm not really willing to say that we ourselves are doing it. The flaw goes to the UN itself.

Had you said that about almost anything else, I'd agree. In this case, however, you are wrong. The money is channelled through the UN but it is specifically allocated to the PLO by Congress every few months. This is what your vaunted "neutrality" gets you. Our position in this conflict is wrong; we are providing the Palestinians with the funds they need to kill innocent Israelis.

 

I don't feel the PLO itself is evil

You are wrong. The PLO is a terrorist organisation created by cynical Arab regimes which have killed and oppressed more Palestinians in a single day than Israel has in its entire history. The PLO is a tool, designed not to "liberate" the Palestinians (which none of the Arab states, especially Jordan, with its own rebellious majority, wish to see) but primarily to destroy Israel. It was founded in 1964 for that explicit purpose. Its own "Covenant" says so. Article 22: "Israel is a constant threat to peace in the Middle East and the entire world... the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence."

 

Whenever Arafat kicks the bucket or is removed from his position, they'll lose almost all credibility in the non-Arab world

Wrong again. They don't care about Arafat. No one does. He's a figurehead, and that's all. They use him and the brainwashed Palestinian people to fight a proxy war against Israel.

 

Arafat is really all that keeps even me from disliking them. In my eyes, he at least looks like he's making an effort for peace. If only he could get his followers in line, which isn't happening as long as they're being financed for their suicidal efforts.

Excuse me, but I have to ask you a serious question.

 

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?!

 

Arafat? Yasser Arafat? "Making an effort for peace?" What kind of fucked-up topsy-turvy world do you live in? Did the entire Karine A incident go over your head? What about the counterfeiting presses discovered in his own headquarters, churning out dollar bills and pound notes? What about his constant calls for martyrs? "I will be glad to exchange the blood of 70 martyrs for one Israeli," who do you think said that? - and who do you think gave the "We will march to Jerusalem, martyrs by the millions" speech just a couple of months ago? Who indoctrinates Palestinian children with anti-Semitic hatred 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, effacing Israel entirely from geography books and publishing and distributing obscene screeds like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Who the hell do you think is financing the terrorists, the goddamn Easter Bunny?!

 

Christ Jesus.

 

Sweden has the highest tax burden in Europe

Completely wrong. Corporate tax rates in Germany and Sweden are 38% and 28% respectively. VAT in Sweden is higher for some things but lower for others. Marginal income tax differs by a little less than the same amount in the other direction, although Germany's is supposed to go down by about 6% more over the next few years. We'll see. Overall, however, Germany is much worse because of the "solidarity" tax that subsidises the continued disintegration of the east at the expense of the west. Not to mention the havoc wreaked by the completely idiotic 1:1 exchange rate immediately after unification. Politicians who screw around with economics so grossly and so incompetently make me sick.

 

anything we do these days is wrong in the minds of the overwhelming majority of the Arab world

Someone give the boy a cookie.

 

It's really quite a radical idea, but the only way to end this is for Israel to just go all out with their attacks on the PLO, eradicate their power structure... Israel could whip just about every country bordering them. At once.

It's an old but perfectly sound idea that's been voiced several times in this very forum and elsewhere, and I'm glad another person has seen the light.

 

I just wish we'd give more time to gather up some kind of global support before we do it. I really don't like the idea of us going off like some kind of cavalier nation and invading countries

Let's see. Apart from the British, who are on board already, you want us to solicit the support of the Beijing butchers, the arms dealers whose overriding concern is that they get the money Iraq owes them (that applies to at least three countries), and the French.

The French. Think about that for a minute.

Now don't you feel silly?

 

Another unfortunate part of lacking a coalition as in 1991 is the admittedly selfish factor of a smaller percentage of American soldiers being committed to combat.

This is a disgusting sentiment. Allied soldiers are allied soldiers. Selfish? To say the least. Completely unconscionable is more like it. We don't ask other countries to join us because we want to lessen the odds that our people will get hit. How ridiculous.

 

[Pakistan's] president may be our chum, but the citizenry sure as hell isn't.

Don't put too much money on the first part, either. He's an extremely intelligent man who seems to have the interests of his country at heart, which currently involve allying with us.

That said, he's a lot better than the alternatives.

 

Radical Islam is not wrong when it isn't actively forced on the populace of a nation.

Dead wrong. Regimes which foster intolerance, hatred, and murder are wrong whether they have a mandate from the people or not. True democracy only comes about in a fair, tolerant, and open society governed by the rule of law. There are just democracies and there are evil mobs. There is a difference.

Think about this for a moment. You're so set against Christian principles being involved in government in any way. Say there's a small town in the Bible belt somewhere which wants to teach "Creation Science" in its schools (or an entire state... thinking of something beginning with K). Would you oppose such a movement even if it were backed by the majority? Of course you would. You've said so already. Why? Because the minorities have rights too. However democratically it may be passed, any law which oppresses any group or person unjustly is wrong. In such cases the principles of liberty and justice trump the principle of self-determination by the majority. Some things are not up for a vote.

 

This is precisely why I say that liberals as a group hate Christianity and Christianity alone. Take a good look at your own arguments. You're attacking the President of the United States for incorporating justice and charity and good works in his philosophy of government, Christian values all. And at the same time you're defending radical Islam, which enslaves, brutalises, oppresses, murders, and rapes as "the will of the people." An inevitable consequence of free choice.

I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't work.

 

If a country put a radical regime in power by popular movement, then we can't really complain

Not only can we complain, we can also bomb the hell out of the fuckers. You think the Taliban wasn't popular once? "Forcefully took power as a minority?" Please. Learn your history. They were welcomed joyfully as an alternative to the warlords' incessant wars. No one ever looks like a tyrant when he gets his foot in the door.

 

that's really what we're fighting for, the right to choose.

Among other things, such as liberty, justice, truth, and the American way.

 

I don't think anyone was tortured or anything, but I could be wrong. I'd be appreciative if someone could answer me on this

Okay. You are indeed wrong.

You're welcome.

 

you thought I was some bleeding-heart liberal?

Yes. That's how you came across at first. And that tired old saccharine misquote isn't helping, although your initial post in this thread certainly did. I still think your views are more palatable than I once did, but you're abominably misinformed on several of the issues addressed above.

 

Anyway, Voltaire never said anything like "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." He wasn't that stupid and he was much, much wittier.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Yes, abominably misinformed means that I'm disagreeing with you. Point taken. I stand on everything I've said. Good job on perverting what I say and taking parts out to fit your wants though, I'd do it myself if I ever used the Quote button.

 

And Voltaire did say that. look it up yourself.

 

Kotzenjunge

Willing to Take Other Views

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Your positions have been comprehensively addressed. Saying that you "stand on everything" is not a rebuttal or an argument; it is mere obstinance. You're a child shrieking "Won't!" when he's told to look into the ophthalmologist's flashlight.

 

Voltaire did not say that. Cite the work and the page in which you read it. Have you read anything he's written? Anything at all?

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Yes, O condescending kettle, I am black.

 

Sure, when I find some kind of link to substantiate my claim, I'll post it.

 

Kotzenjunge

Won't, Dammit

 

EDIT: Thanks, Google! That was quick!

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"Sure?" Is that a yes or a no? Have you read even one single work by Voltaire? "Some kind of link" won't substantiate your claim, especially when the "quotation" is followed by the parenthesis "attributed." A citation of a work and a page number will.

 

This is why I dislike liberals, and this is why I will classify you as a (relatively) conservative Democrat rather than the other and more complimentary way around. Any time you're challenged directly on the issues, you simply lie and claim that your words have been distorted, an ad hominem attack that fails to address perfectly valid criticisms. I didn't "pervert" anything in your post. Every single word I quoted is contextually faithful and I have made no effort whatsoever to distort your views. If I have done so inadvertently, please point out where and how and explain what you really meant to say. I'm asking you to do this in all sincerity.

You see, it's just so much easier to take you apart when I accept everything you say at face value.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Fine, I'll find a complete citation then.

 

Contextually faithful to your stance. I'll find some examples, fine.

 

Original line: It's really quite a radical idea, but the only way to end this is for Israel to just go all out with their attacks on the PLO, eradicate their power structure and expel all Moslems from their country. That would only end the PLO/Israel conflict though, and would lead to a much larger conflict as every bordering Arab nation would no doubt invade, but in all honesty, Israel could whip just about every country bordering them. At once.

 

The quote: It's really quite a radical idea, but the only way to end this is for Israel to just go all out with their attacks on the PLO, eradicate their power structure... Israel could whip just about every country bordering them. At once.

 

The actual threatening part of such a proposal was omitted, which is the part that I considered radical about it, and is why it shouldn't happen, because while it may solve the problem, it creates a much larger one.

 

Original line: I don't think anyone was tortured or anything, but I could be wrong. I'd be appreciative if someone could answer me on this. I'm talking physical torture, to clarify.

 

Quoted line: I don't think anyone was tortured or anything, but I could be wrong. I'd be appreciative if someone could answer me on this

 

Yeah, you answered it, but was it physical torture?

 

While looking over everything again, what right do we have to just up and "bomb the fuckers" who have fundamentalist regimes? Is this another case of our country not liking someone who may dislike us as opposed to examining why they like us and allowing us to tackle the problem in a more efficient manner? And did we really need cursing? I mean, they haven't ALL done something to us.

 

Original line: I just wish we'd give more time to gather up some kind of global support before we do it. I really don't like the idea of us going off like some kind of cavalier nation and invading countries with no one but Britain supporting us, not because we're not militarily strong enough, but because such an action could strain relations for a long time, even if it's successful.

 

Quoted line: I just wish we'd give more time to gather up some kind of global support before we do it. I really don't like the idea of us going off like some kind of cavalier nation and invading countries

 

Here the reasoning was omitted again, this time in the name of taking morbid jabs at other countries.

 

That's just in that post though. I've looked over the reply to the original thread-starter and I don't see any reason supplied as to why the PLO is evil. This is once again more of what will probably be called "liberal appeasment," but I'm of the school that you can't be evil if you think what you're doing is right. You can do wrong deeds, but you are not actually evil if your convictions push you to action in the belief that they are correct.

 

I'm going to look for another page with a real citation. I'll post it here when I find one.

 

Kotzenjunge

Just Wants to be Quoted Fully

 

EDIT: Okay, you've got me on an exact writing citation. It was never in his writings, but is commonly attributed to him by accounts of his contemporaries, which were compiled for the book Friends of Voltaire.

 

Funny thing is that I think Voltaire would still be despised even today by the majority of people.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Fine, I'll find a complete citation then... I'm going to look for another page with a real citation. I'll post it here when I find one.

Have a good time looking.

 

The actual threatening part of such a proposal was omitted, which is the part that I considered radical about it, and is why it shouldn't happen

It wasn't "radical," as I said, because it's been proposed countless times in the past. Yes, the "threatening part." If you wanted to say that it shouldn't happen, you need to take some English classes instead of trying to blame me for your poor writing. That entire section comes off as prescription, not proscription. For reference:

It's really quite a radical idea, but the only way to end this is for Israel to just go all out with their attacks on the PLO, eradicate their power structure and expel all Moslems from their country. That would only end the PLO/Israel conflict though, and would lead to a much larger conflict as every bordering Arab nation would no doubt invade, but in all honesty, Israel could whip just about every country bordering them. At once. They may have strength in numbers, but once again, Israel has the best and latest in everything, and the Arab world is still rolling around in old Soviet wares. I wouldn't put it past us to even help them out if we had commenced the war on Iraq at the time.

It "would lead to a much larger conflict... but... Israel could whip just about every country bordering them. At once." (emphasis added)

That isn't an argument against action. That's an argument for action.

 

Yeah, you answered it, but was it physical torture?

Yes. Beating people with sticks and solitary confinement is physical torture.

 

what right do we have to just up and "bomb the fuckers" who have fundamentalist regimes?

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."

- Revelation 19:11

Our right is called justice. Also liberty. And truth.

 

the reasoning was omitted again, this time in the name of taking morbid jabs at other countries.

Not at all. I stated clearly that your willingness to relinquish moral authority to and seek sanction from countries and institutions which have no moral standing is cowardly, pointless, and foolish.

 

I don't see any reason supplied as to why the PLO is evil.

Well let's see. They deliberately target and kill innocents, including old women and children. They celebrate death instead of life. They gladly send their own children to die as a religious duty.

Hmm, sounds evil enough to me.

 

I'm of the school that you can't be evil if you think what you're doing is right.

By your reasoning, then, Usama bin Laden is merely misguided, not evil. True or false? Speak up laddie. Wouldn't want to "pervert" your ever so pure words.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

EDIT: Okay, you've got me on an exact writing citation. It was never in his writings, but is commonly attributed to him by accounts of his contemporaries, which were compiled for the book Friends of Voltaire.

Correct, but the time limit ran out. So no cookie.

I knew very well that it doesn't appear in any of his works because I've actually read them. I don't despise Voltaire; I despise the way pretentious people misquote him without even trying to understand his real ideas, content instead with a mere pseudo-factoid culled from some reject's "Quotable Quotes" website.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."

- Revelation 19:11

Our right is called justice. Also liberty. And truth."

 

Show me where that's in the Constitution and I'll gladly let the Christian Soldiers march onward. Until then, and here is where I get to use dirty language in the name of promoting what I think, leave the fucking church out of the state, it has no place there.

 

"By your reasoning, then, Usama bin Laden is merely misguided, not evil. True or false? Speak up laddie. Wouldn't want to "pervert" your ever so pure words."

 

First, my words aren't more pure than anyone else's. I just want them fully represented. Once again, talking down to me won't work. Just cut the pretentious bullshit and speak to me normally. He has done more wrong deeds than I myself can name, but no, he is not evil. Feel free to shoot me as some kind of heathen, but he is totally convinced that he is correct. I suppose we should kill any Arab who delights at our misfortune the same way we'll delight in blowing away Iraq. Once again, no one is evil as long as they believe totally that what they're doing is right and have no doubts about it. I'd say killing some 3,000 people takes a lot of conviction and no doubt, so he was convinced that what he ordered was correct.

 

Go ahead, flame away, but before you do, think about being considered an evil American yourself by a common Moslem. You're pretty convinced that all you say and do is correct. I know what the defense will be, you didn't kill thousands and wish death upon millions. The fact of the matter is that you just don't have the means to do it, because if you did you'd be seeing to it that that same thing was happening to these "evil" Arabs as we speak.

 

Kotzenjunge

Is Apparently a Communist Subvert Sent to Undermine America and Destroy the World

[Zorin Industries 0]

:Marks out:

 

Kotzenjunge, I wish I could get my point across as well as you can.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

No, I don't want any fans or anything. Please keep those outbursts to PMs.

 

Kotzenjunge

Doesn't Want Supporters

[Zorin Industries 0]

Sorry.

 

You suck, I hate you